I just wanted to take a couple of moments to respond to your piece which was itself a response to the interview with Alan Moore.

While I agree that Alan should never be dismissed out of hand, or mocked for that matter, I am beginning to lose sympathy for the man simply because he chooses to denigrate his peers while self admittedly ignoring the medium. I enjoy Alan Moore's writing and I have long been a supporter of Alan's stance to separate himself from adaptations of his work. "From Hell" and "League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" were terrible, and I certainly wouldn't want to be associated with them either. However, despite the history of problems between Alan and the DC/WB publishing hierarchy, the conversation has become increasingly one-sided.

Alan's beef is decidedly personal now and is taking form in an ugly one-sided exchange. His arguments are becoming increasingly narcissistic. I think DC killing Steve Moore's Watchmen adaptation has more to do with a marketing decision than any axe Paul Levitz and co. may have had to grind with Alan's phantom stranglehold over the property. He hangs Dave Gibbons and Steve Moore both out to dry making them look like pitiful characters, one to be pitied for his innocence and tragedy, there other to be loathed for his greed. If a friend of mine decided to eschew all tact and discretion in the face of a 25 plus year friendship, I don't think I could tolerate it.

Then he continues to throw baseless potshots at DC regarding their level of talent and marketable properties. While you dismiss it as a simple smack talk, he simultaneously insults everyone he has worked with in the past and in the present. Somehow Neil Gaiman, his good friend, and who still has a favorable relationship with DC is not top-flight talent? I am not suggesting Neil would ever consent to write a Watchmen sequel, I am merely using him as the best example. Am I to assume Frank Quitely and Grant Morrison are merely barrel scrapings? It irks me as a fan to be sure, but ultimately, I find that it sounds exactly the same as any person who has spent a lifetime in an industry and has decided that no one who comes after should bother even attempting to breath his air. It is petulant and uncalled for. For a gifted writer, he has chosen craven words. Why not just say what he really means and tell them how small their genitals are?

It ends up being a generational argument. We look fondly on the past and degrade the present and future. "Well I remember when..." only works when you continue to try and understand the contemporary landscape which Alan has chosen to ignore. It is also a horrible argument in consideration of the fact that Moore made his bones on characters that someone else created and that he attached his name to, not the other way around. Even Marvelman/Miracleman, Watchmen, and the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen are built on the backs of creators who, because of their creative output, never saw their lives improve to the extent that Moore did.

I am not suggesting DC is an innocent party. Every artist or writer working in comics today can probably lay out some kind of disagreeable circumstance they have encountered with a publisher of any level. However, DC is in a place where it would be inappropriate to respond. Alan Moore can say whatever he likes in the knowledge that DC and Warner Brothers in particular would never condone a one-on-one war of words with a single creator. The maxim "bad press is still good press" is absolutely absurd in that kind of situation. It would certainly help to have some clarity though. While Moore may believe that these are facts without repudiation, others may weigh in with a vastly different vantage point. As I said, I don't believe DC is lacking in responsibility for questionable tactics but I also do not doubt that Moore has his own share of blame to hold. We do not have solid facts, we have only Alan Moore's perception of events, his suppositions and assumptions. It is easy to take the side of the single man against the monolithic corporation, but it is getting to the point where Moore is eroding his own foundation. Moore's inability to hold the moral high ground in the press only serves to embolden his detractors.